When I was building Jottings, I had to make a decision early on: which feed format should I support?
The honest answer? All three.
If you've been building a blog or microblog, you've probably noticed that most sites offer multiple feed formats. But you might not understand why we do it, or what the differences actually mean. Let me break down the three main formats you'll encounter: RSS 2.0, Atom 1.0, and JSON Feed.
A Brief History of Feed Formats
The web has always been about distributing content. In the early 2000s, there was no single standard way to syndicate blog posts. Then RSS (Really Simple Syndication) became the de facto standard, followed by Atom as a more formalized alternative, and recently JSON Feed as a modern JSON-based approach.
Each format solves similar problems but makes different trade-offs. Understanding these trade-offs helps you choose the right format for your audience.
RSS 2.0: The Standard Everyone Knows
RSS is the oldest and most widely supported feed format. It's been around since the late 1990s, and nearly every feed reader in existence supports it.
What it looks like:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>My Blog</title>
<link>https://example.com</link>
<item>
<title>First Post</title>
<link>https://example.com/post</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 10:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<description>Post content here</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
Pros:
- Universal support across all feed readers
- Simple structure, easy to understand
- Battle-tested over 25+ years
- Great for beginners
Cons:
- Date handling is loose (uses email date format, prone to parsing errors)
- Spec is less strict, leading to inconsistent implementations
- Limited metadata fields (hard to add custom data)
When to use it: If you want maximum compatibility and your audience primarily uses traditional feed readers like Feedly or NetNewsWire, RSS 2.0 is the safest choice.
Atom 1.0: The Modern Standard
Atom was created in 2005 to address RSS's shortcomings. It's more formally specified, with stricter requirements for valid feeds.
What it looks like:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<title>My Blog</title>
<link href="https://example.com"/>
<updated>2025-12-06T10:00:00Z</updated>
<entry>
<title>First Post</title>
<link href="https://example.com/post"/>
<published>2025-12-06T10:00:00Z</published>
<summary>Post content here</summary>
</entry>
</feed>
Pros:
- Stricter specification = fewer parsing errors
- Better date/time handling (uses ISO 8601, the proper standard)
- Built-in support for extensions (namespaces)
- Handles media, categories, and authors more consistently
- Used by many modern blogging platforms
Cons:
- Slightly more verbose than RSS
- Less universally known by non-technical readers
- Some older feed readers struggle with it
When to use it: If you want a standards-compliant, future-proof format that handles complex metadata well, Atom is the better choice.
JSON Feed: The New Kid
JSON Feed is the newest standard, created in 2017 by Manton Reece and Brent Simmons. It's designed for developers who prefer JSON over XML.
What it looks like:
{
"version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1",
"title": "My Blog",
"home_page_url": "https://example.com",
"feed_url": "https://example.com/feed.json",
"items": [
{
"id": "post-1",
"title": "First Post",
"url": "https://example.com/post",
"date_published": "2025-12-06T10:00:00Z",
"summary": "Post content here"
}
]
}
Pros:
- Human-readable (no XML syntax to parse)
- Easy to work with for developers (just native JSON)
- Clean, minimal spec
- Modern design choices (ISO 8601 dates like Atom)
- Growing support among new feed readers
Cons:
- Not supported by older feed readers
- Still building ecosystem adoption
- Smaller community and resources online
- Can be harder for non-developer feed readers to validate
When to use it: If your audience includes developers, or you're building tooling that processes feeds programmatically, JSON Feed is elegant and practical.
What About Your Feed Readers?
Here's the practical reality: modern feed readers support all three formats. Whether you subscribe to an RSS feed, an Atom feed, or a JSON feed, apps like Feedly, NetNewsWire, Inoreader, and NewsBlur will handle it seamlessly.
The real compatibility issue is between feed readers themselves. Some older RSS readers still don't handle Atom well. And only newer readers support JSON Feed. But since feed readers auto-detect the format, you never have to think about it as a user.
Why Jottings Supports All Three
When I was designing Jottings, I made the decision early on: every site gets all three formats automatically.
yourname.jottings.me/feed.xml(RSS 2.0)yourname.jottings.me/atom.xml(Atom 1.0)yourname.jottings.me/feed.json(JSON Feed)
This means:
- Readers can choose: If someone prefers one format, they can use it
- Developers have options: If you're building a tool that consumes feeds, you have flexibility
- Future-proof: You're ready whether your audience uses legacy readers or the latest tools
- No pressure: You never have to worry about which feed to publish
Plus, Jottings generates feeds for individual tags, so if your audience only cares about your #photography posts, they can subscribe to just that tag in any format.
The Takeaway
If you're starting a blog or microblog, don't stress about which feed format to publish. The answer is: all of them if you can, RSS 2.0 at minimum.
For your audience, it doesn't matter. They'll subscribe to whatever format you publish, and their feed reader will handle it. The real value of feeds isn't in the format—it's in giving your readers a direct connection to your content, free from algorithms and tracking.
That's what the open web is about.
Start your own Jottings site today and get RSS, Atom, and JSON Feed feeds automatically. Your readers will thank you.
The best feed format is the one that works for your audience. Choose the open web.